NOC on Permanent Absorption

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 16 October 2010 This query is : Resolved
I am serving as LDC in GREF (BRO), Min of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Govt of India, an Integral part of Armed forces of India, wef 10 Aug 2002. I was selected as Clerk in CGDA during Apr 2003 through proper channel. But later a ban was imposed during May 2003 on outside employment/interdepartmental transfer/permanent absorption by Director General Border Roads (HQ DGBR), Head of Deptt stating that there is deficiency of staff in department. Due to the ban imposed, my candidature was cancelled by competent authority. The ban was imposed till Nov 2007. During Nov 2007 the ban was lifted with a condition that only persons having minimum 07 (seven) years service will be relieved. That time I had completed only 05 1/2 years of service, but yet I applied for some outside employment/interdepartmental transfer/permanent absorption, which all were not permitted being the condition in the directions of HQ DGBR. However, some of the individual who were less than 07 years of service and were also junior than me were relieved on outside employment by HQ DGBR violating its own policy/directions which is a total discrimination against me in the yes of law also. Meanwhile, during Jun 2008 Director General Border Roads (HQ DGBR) again imposed the ban on outside employment/interdepartmental transfer/permanent absorption which still exists stating same that there is deficiency of staff. I have represented/applied several times for lifting the ban/granting me NOC as this is causing me financial hardship and is a total hindrance in my career prospect. I have acquired a higher qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm)/Technical qualification and was also bestowed with award being stood first in West Bengal state Medical Faculty. I intimated the same to Head of Department and requested to grant me to join the different opportunities I was getting having higher pay & career prospect which all had been denied. As this department has a harsh duty which kept always me away from my home, my parents were always tensed for me. Meanwhile, my mother also expired due to heart attack as soon as my arrival at LC DGBR, Kolkata. My aged father now residing alone at my home is sufferring from heart disease. I stating all the facts again applied for granting me NOC on compassionate ground to join Department of Telecommunication, Govt of India on permanent absorption for the post of Junior Accountant having higher pay and career prospect where I have been selected on the basis of advance application fwd by my previous unit. But the same was not fwd to HQ DGBR by the Chief HQ CE (P) Vartak and was returned unactioned. Now again a letter from Controller of Communication Accounts, Kolkata has been recd to this unit regarding my selection as Junior Accountant in DoT, GoI wanting my ACR and Vigilance Clearance Certificate and I have came to know that I will be posted at Kolkata permanently which will enable me to look after my aged alone father. Meanwhile, a letter has been issued by HQ DGBR regarding disparity in pay, allowances and other benefits between GREF (We) and Army personell and asked for willingness of personnel who does not want the benefits of Army facilities, whom will be adjusted to some other Central Govt department/PSU. On the basis of the letter of HQ DGBR, I have applied to adjust me in any central govt dept. Now I want to join DoT, Govt of India as junior Account having higher pay. Please issue necessary directions to lift the ban imposed on outside employment/interdepartmental transfer/permanent absorption as this violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also Article 21 and 23 by treating such acts as Forced labour and as well as violation of Human Rights and moreover I want to serve the country which is the biggest service and is totally to the public interest. Please answer me and advise/suggest me further course of action and also Govt policies/orders/court orders please. Although I asked previously this question, but the answer is not satisfactory to me. Kindly answer some satisfactory answer as I think the ban imposed is against the constitutional rights.

Follow Query

Report Abuse